Prof. Myers On Catholic Radio Intl.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604577' date='Jul 21 2008, 02:40 PM']I think a good case could be made that it is still the Church's property. Basically, the transaction in the Church is like this: "you can come up to eat this if you are Catholic, in a state of grace, and will consume it here"[/quote]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604670' date='Jul 21 2008, 04:47 PM']breaking the fast or not being in a state of grace are spiritual disciplines asked of people, receiving it in the presence of the minister, however, should be viewed as a legal requirement of receiving it.[/quote]

My thoughts, exactly. Care to file the case?

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604670' date='Jul 21 2008, 04:47 PM']if I offer to give someone $100 if they promise to me in person that they are going to spend that $100 on food, that's a verbal contract and if they didn't do it then they took that $100 off of me under false pretenses and are liable, are they not? The Church offers the Eucharist to people if those people promise to receive it in the presence of the minister of holy communion and if they do not do so, they are in breach of an implicit verbal contract and that is not their property.[/quote]
There are such things as conditional gifts, but here you'd have issues with promulgation. It is rare, in my experience, for a priest to explicitly lay out conditions for reception of the Eucharist, particularly conditions such as "you have to eat this in my presence." Unless there were explicit conditions laid out, and people knowingly broke those conditions, you'd have a hard time proving anything.

Besides ... do we really want to get into arguing that Jesus is legally the Church's [i]property[/i]? That doesn't sit well with me.

[mommas_boy]

Question, is there anything in Canon Law that specifies explicitly that communion must be consumed immediately? That way the Church can claim that all communicants should be aware ...

[Barbarus]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1604683' date='Jul 21 2008, 05:29 PM']Question, is there anything in Canon Law that specifies explicitly that communion must be consumed immediately? That way the Church can claim that all communicants should be aware ...[/quote]
Don't know about canon law, but come on. We all know the state of catechesis. I know plenty of people who've been Catholic their whole lives who haven't the slightest clue about the real teachings of the church, in canon law or otherwise. And those are Catholics. I've never had a priest check my Catholic card when going up to receive, so I imagine that a non-Catholic who wasn't too far out of step with everyone else would be able to receive without question.

[CatholicDefender]

I would stop him by force without even thinking twice (and so should every Catholic). He has no excuse. Period.

Edited July 21, 2008 by CatholicDefender

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1604679' date='Jul 21 2008, 05:25 PM']Besides ... do we really want to get into arguing that Jesus is legally the Church's [i]property[/i]? That doesn't sit well with me.[/quote]


Non-Catholics do not believe that the Catholic Eucharist is Christ, and so that would not be what the court argument would be. The court argument would be about the host, and the Church would claim sole responsibility to distribute hosts. The Church would be correct.

I agree that Catholics should use force when necessary to defend the Eucharist. It would assuredly result in prison time, but really it's worth it, no? I pray that I would have the strength to defend the Eucharist.